I will: anyone can report a USEF/NGO member. The accused gets no notification until they are temporarily suspended. That gets published on the website often before the accused is notified by SS. SS is under no obligation to move quickly or make contact with the accused in a timely fashion. Meanwhile, the court of public opinion is in full session, speculating on social media. Just what I’ve witnessed/been told. Maybe SS should revamp this process.
5 Likes
I think you are only seeing the public facing side of the process. I understand there is a lot of investigation before a suspension is done. I think a suspension means there is evidence enough to move to a full hearing. By that point the person absolutely knows what’s going on. That’s why when they get suspended they say “these allegations are false” not “OMG I have no idea what’s going on.”
My impression so far is that some cases faded out because the accusers were not able to follow through on the hearing process (death, cold feet) but I don’t think we’ve heard of a case where a squeaky clean trainer was suspended on false accusations and then cleared of all wrong doing. And I am sure SS gets their share of false accusations that they weed out and don’t proceed to suspension.
We are so used to the comparative transparency of the criminal justice system that we may expect other institutions to be similarly open, what you see is what you get. But that’s not true.
I can speak to colleges. When the young professor who shared my campus office was investigated and invited to resign for her second sexual relationship with an undergrad, I had no idea until I went in over the summer and all her books were gone. I’ve watched her on FB pop up for one year contracts since all over the globe, move on with excuses, but nothing has ever been said by the institutions. Every once in a while a professor is fired for inappropriate behavior and it is made public in a messy way, but most of the time it’s handled highly confidentially as is appropriate for HR issues.
So I am sure SS is equally busy behind the scenes.
21 Likes
I’m not going to drag in the particulars of the case(s) I am familiar with. But I can assure you that you’re assumptions about SS’s processes are not correct.
4 Likes
I’m generally supportive of SafeSport, but there actually was a case like this last year—Ali Nilforushan got an interim suspension after an accusation that turned out to be a big misrepresentation of the scenario, if I heard the details correctly, and the suspension was removed 6 days later.
This is not at all intended to be commentary on any of the suspensions being discussed in this thread, just calling out that they have gotten it wrong before. Six days is pretty quick IMO but I can’t imagine that was a nice week to be him.
5 Likes
Your friend should have filed a complaint. There is a procedure for that.
1 Like
The parties involved have done so.
5 Likes
My understanding is that it wasn’t so much the altercation but the fact that the other party was a witness or something in another SS investigation and they wanted to rule out a connection, given that the SS case came up during the altercation. But that’s at least second- or third-hand info so 
.
Agree that it was excessive based on what I know.
If I explain that would deprive you of reading and learning about due process, it’s roots in English common law, and it’s absence in totalitarian regimes.
Except we are not talking about law, we are talking about kicking people out of a club.
42 Likes
I’ve created this alter so that I can describe the experience of a friend (a trainer in another sport) who was notified of a Safe Sport allegation against him. I am deliberately being vague on some of the details to protect him and his reputation.
I will say that I had a lot more concerns about the potential for abuse of Safe Sport before my friend was accused. In his case, I believe the process ultimately worked as it should have.
The background is that in 2015 a woman in the training group (I’ll call her X) started acting very erractically, including statements about all tap water being poisoned. She also accused everyone in the co-ed training group of sleeping with each other (not true). [I was with the group at the time, and was one of the people she falsely accused of sleeping around.]
Later, we learned that X had a lifelong history of delusional mental illness that was well controlled by medications, but that she kept going off of her medications.
To cut a very long story short, she was asked by the trainer to leave the group. She refused. She kept showing up at meetings of the training group. Finally the trainer spoke to the police, the police spoke to X, and she stopped showing up.
That was 2015.
In 2021, the trainer was contacted by an investigator regarding a Safesport allegation that had been filed against the trainer. The investigator wanted to interview the trainer. The trainer asked for more details - who had filed the complaint, what were the allegations. The investigator would say only that the investigation related to events occurring in 2015.
At that point, the trainer had a good idea that it was X who had brought the complaint and gathered all the emails he had from 2015 about the situation. The trainer also privately confided in me about the situation, since I had been present and part of the training group at the time of X’s erratic behavior. I told the trainer that yes, if he needed a witness to support his statements, I was more than happy to be that person.
The morning of the interview, the trainer was told who had filed the complaint - it was indeed X. The trainer provided his collection of emails and explained what had happened. He offered to provide me as a witness, but the investigator said that it wasn’t necessary. The investigator closed the interview by saying that the trainer would be contacted again if more was needed for the investigation, and also indicated that “no news was good news.”
[I’m obviously getting the above second-hand from the trainer - I wasn’t present for the interview.]
The trainer never heard anything more. His name was never publicized, he was never put on any suspension list. At this point, over a year later, the trainer hopes that this is closed.
So on the one hand, the process worked well in that a person who was innocent of the charges against him did not have his reputation damaged in anyway.
On the other hand, the whole investigation was incredibly stressful for him. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s a way to eliminate that stress. However, I think it would be an improvement if a) those who are accused are provided with the details of the accusation and b) those who are never charged are formally notified when the matter is closed.
31 Likes
Just curious. Were all these people consenting adults? And if so, why would she think it was any of her business?
Sorry you and your friend had to go through that, but glad it turned out the way it did.
1 Like
Thanks for sharing this perspective on a SafeSport investigation to the thread. It’s interesting. So much of the focus of discussion has been on banned cases. But, how SafeSport handles cases they eventually close/dismiss is an important part of the picture as well.
It does seem like some sort of status notification would be appropriate and fair.
7 Likes
All post-college adults at various stages of life.
As for why X thought it was her business? I think that was part of her mental illness.
9 Likes
16 Likes
Ok, I don’t recognize that one. Who is it? Lol.
It’s Zeus, from Thor: Love & Thunder. He has a ridiculous French accent.
2 Likes
Ah, thanks. I haven’t seen that one yet.
You ain’t missing much. Just watch the clips on YouTube to get what you need.
Mentally ill people under delusions aren’t typically guided by logic.
2 Likes
I have a question regard Safesport, so I figured COTH Forum would be my best bet for an answer.
How does SS determine banned vs ineligible vs suspended etc.
My examples, looking on here, would be Sam Berry recently moved to Banned (pending appeal) after his arrest.
However, Rich Fellers, Dylan Harries, and Alec Lawler have also been arrested for “alleged” crimes, but they are only on suspended-ineligible lists.
I’m sure there’s more on there, but those are ones I know for sure have been arrested.
So why wouldn’t that move them to banned and how does Safesport differentiate those things?
I guess in the scheme of things it doesn’t matter since they are all ineligible to compete, but at the same time, other than Sam Berry, they aren’t labeled “permanently ineligible” - so technically they could come back?
Hope that make sense!
1 Like
